Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

New Clause 7

Role of the Information Commissioner
‘(1) The Information Commissioner shall have full jurisdiction over the workings of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and the Pensions Regulator.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare, and keep under review, a code of practice with respect to the disclosure of information relating to pensions by public authorities.
(3) Before preparing or altering the code, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) any specified public authority;
(b) the Information Commissioner; and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) A public authority must have regard to the code in (or in connection with) disclosing information relating to pensions.
(5) Nothing in this section applies in relation to any disclosure by a relevant public authority of information whose subject-matter is a matter about which provision would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(6) The Secretary of State must—
(a) lay a copy of the code, and of any alterations to it, before Parliament; and
(b) from time to time publish the code as for the time being in force.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Motion made [this day], That the clause be read a Second Time.

Paul Rowen: I would like to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister.

Nigel Waterson: And you were doing so well.

Paul Rowen: I will not go there. The Prime Minister said:
“We will give the Information Commissioner the power to spot-check Departments, to do everything in his power and our power to secure the protection of data. In other words, we will do everything in our power to make sure data are safe.”
That was the statement he made following the very shocking loss of information from HMRC.
What this new clause does is to set up a mechanism for ensuring that the Information Commissioner has a role in protecting data. Over 6 million people will be signing up for personal accounts. The pensions authorities will therefore have a considerable number of personal details about these people, and it is quite important that this information is protected. The code of practice that this clause sets up will enable a dialogue to take place between the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner on what sort of changes in attitude the Information Commissioner wishes to see from Departments like the DWP to ensure that data are protected.
Perhaps I should remind members what the House of Commons Justice Committee had to say in its report earlier this year. They pointed out that the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to private organisations and individuals and they can be held criminally liable if data are lost. But it does not currently apply to Government Departments. On 3 January, the Information Commissioner, Sir Richard Thomas, said in response to this that losing data should be a criminal offence. New clause 7 does not introduce that: that presumably will come when the reviews by the chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Information Commissioner, set up by the Prime Minister, are published.
What this new clause does do—and I think it is an important clause and the sort of clause that should apply to all public bills which grant Government Departments more access to private individuals’ information—is require the Department and other bodies it sets up to think very clearly how that data should be handled. I think that is a fair and reasonable point.
To quote from the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), about the scale of the problem at the moment:
“The scale of the data loss by Government bodies and contractors is truly shocking. But the evidence we have had points to further hidden problems. It is frankly incredible, for example, that the measures Revenue and Customs has put in place were not already standard procedure.”
This particular new clause has a requirement that there is a set of standard procedures for handling data loss relating to personal accounts before the pensions authorities actually begin to collect that data. So we are saying very clearly at the beginning that we regard this as vital and so important that we have sought to include the clause in the Bill. I do not see why the Minister cannot support that.
I hope that the review will introduce criminal charges for Departments that lose data, but we are proposing setting a standard and saying that, in future, when the DWP is collecting data—in this case about pensions—there will be clear guidance. People, including the Information Commissioner, will be involved in setting out that guidance, and it will follow from the review that there will be consequences if that personal data is not adequately protected. By having a code of practice, following up the review that the Prime Minister has commissioned and having legislation that makes data loss a criminal offence for Departments, we can provide people with a level of security for their personal data which they are not getting at the moment, and to which I believe they are entitled.

Mike O'Brien: I have no problem with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal: that the Information Commissioner should be able to cover this, and that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and data protection provisions will apply in the normal way. They already do. We do not need this. That is the problem. The Government already have the necessary provisions in place. Indeed, section 44 of the Bill strengthens the sanctions for unlawful disclosure of personal data by staff of the Pensions Regulator. These sanctions will extend to the delivery authority in the event that it is required to handle personal data on the regulator’s behalf. Our view is that the measures in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment will generally replicate safeguards already in place. The Information Commissioner already has powers to oversee the data handling of all present and future data controllers including the regulator, the scheme, and also the delivery authority if it becomes responsible for any personal data.
Under section 51 of the2000 Act, it is the duty of the Information Commissioner to
“promote the following of good practice by data controllers and in particular so to perform his functions under the Act as to promote the observance of the requirements of this Act by data controllers.”
The commissioner has a legal duty which involves promoting the use of codes of practice for data protection, and is keen to be involved in further developing and amending them. It is in fact the commissioner who will do a lot of work to develop those codes.

Paul Rowen: I was listening with interest to what the Minister said. Is he aware of clause 71 of the Serious Crime Act 2007? It is relevant because my new clause is modelled on it. In other words, in a Bill that has just gone through the House, the Government have put in place very clear and explicit arrangements—in this case the code of practice for disclosures of information to prevent fraud. The Home Office has said very clearly that it will draw up a clear code of practice in conjunction with the Information Commissioner. It is not just relying on existing legislation, it is actually making a clear statement. If that is Government policy in the Home Office, does the Minister not accept that there is a very clear case for doing it here, which is what our amendment seeks to do?

Mike O'Brien: The problem is that in respect of the area we are now covering—the pensions legislation and the bodies it is setting up—the Pensions Regulator and the DWP already have documents which are effective codes of practice. We work closely with the Information Commissioner in ensuring that they give full coverage. I say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman that we are satisfied, and the advice I have been given is, that PADA, the Personal Accounts Board that we are setting up, the Pensions Regulator and the Department are already covered. We do not need the new clause. Further, we have consulted the Information Commissioner; he has indicated that he is not seeking a statutory code of practice on the matter in addition to what he already has.
In effect, the Liberal Democrats are offering something that is not only covered by existing legislation but is not particularly wanted by the Information Commissioner. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is duly reassured that what he is seeking to do is not in dispute—in the broad thrust at least, although I might quarrel with some of the detail. The broad thrust is not in dispute and is already covered. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the detail, he will find that what he seeks is already, generally, going to happen.

Paul Rowen: I listened carefully to the Minister and cannot say that I am reassured, because the DWP’s record in the area is hardly exemplary.

Mike O'Brien: What record is the hon. Gentleman referring to? HMRC is not part of the DWP, but of a different Department. I am not sure what his “record” of the DWP specifically is. There have been one or two issues, but they have not been on the scale that he seems to be alluding to.

Paul Rowen: The Minister is aware of the data found on the roundabout in Torbay. I regard any loss of data, whether on 1 million people or on 10, as a serious issue. My view is that, yes, there are codes of practice across Government as a whole that are not operating to the level of security that they should be. Accepting that, I am more reassured by what the Information Commissioner said and I am sure that when we get the Prime Minister’s review we will have a further opportunity to pursue the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Terminally ill claimants and the Pension Protection Fund
‘(1) Where the Board is satisfied that a qualifying member is “terminally ill”, that member, regardless of whether they have reached normal pension age, shall be entitled to a lump sum payment of an amount equal to twice what would be their annual entitlement under the scheme if they retired at normal pension age.
(2) A person is “terminally ill” at any time if at that time they suffer from a progressive disease and their death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.’.—[Mr. Borrow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Borrow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause is a modest one, which aims to deal with an anomaly in the Pension Protection Fund legislation. The issue was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who is my own Member of Parliament, in a ten-minute Bill debate in the House on 17 October last year. He raised the issue of members whose pension schemes have become insolvent and who are therefore reliant on the Pension Protection Fund for their future pensions but who, because they are under the age of 50, are barred by the rules from access to the funds in that fund. A small group of individuals, under their schemes that went insolvent, therefore necessitating the use of the Pension Protection Fund, had a provision that would have sometimes allowed them to have access to funds prior to the age of 50, particularly in those instances where they were terminally ill.
Generally the provision is for individuals who are medically certificated as having less than six months to live to have access to a lump sum. A similar provision exists within the financial assistance scheme, which was set up for those pension schemes that went insolvent prior to the Pension Protection Fund being set up. However, the provision is not at the moment in place for the Pension Protection Fund. A small number of individuals unfortunately reliant on the fund will find themselves to be terminally ill but unable to access any funds at all. Most final salary schemes recognise that, in such circumstances, it is reasonable to make a lump sum payment to help with the additional costs—heating, lighting, special food or diet and even that special family holiday that the individual would want in the final months of life.
The provision would enable the board of the Pension Protection Fund to make a payment of two years’ worth of the pension that the individual would have been entitled to had he or she retired at the normal retirement age. It is a modest and not very expensive provision. It has been difficult to work out the number of individuals who have claimed such a provision within the financial assistance scheme because the numbers are so small. The issue has been overlooked, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look favourably on the new clause.

Mike O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is the important issue of a small number of people who are terminally ill and for whom the sort of financial security that might have been available from their pension scheme is not available from the PPF. It was raised—as he said—in a ten-minute Bill last October by our hon. Friend the Member for Preston. There are strong arguments for change and I welcome discussion of the issue.
Since the matter was first raised, my officials and I have been considering whether it would be possible to ensure early access to some of an individual’s compensation entitlement should they fall terminally ill before they reach normal retirement age or normal pension age. We still need to address some issues before we can make such a change to the PPF. We would need to ensure that changes that increased liabilities for the PPF were sensible and affordable. It is vital that the PPF maintain the confidence of other schemes that fund it through the levies. Any increased costs would need to be justifiable and not lead to disproportionate increases in the levies.
We also need to ensure that any changes do not place inappropriate burdens on the PPF, for example by requiring it to make difficult decisions about entitlements, which could lead to disputes or to a protracted decision-making process. Currently, eligibility for PPF compensation does not require the PPF to make those sorts of decisions and the Government believe that it is important for the good running of the fund that that should not change.
I therefore see merit in the proposals set out in new clause 17, because the test for entitlement could be applied using existing mechanisms to quickly and effectively make decisions on terminal illness; also because the small number of people who might become terminally ill would receive a significant sum—an average of around £10,000—while limiting the cost to the PPF, and therefore the impact on levy payers. The scheme envisaged by the new clause therefore appears to have found a suitable balance.
There are, however, some additional details that need to be considered, for example the impact on possible future compensation paid to survivors. I therefore welcome the opportunity to consider in more detail the proposals in the new clause with a view, I hope, to returning to the issue at a later stage of the Bill. At that point, I hope we will be in a position to bring forward a clear clause that ensures that we are able to deal with this lacuna, this gap in provision. I want to see that gap filled in due course. I hope that we will have a more positive response at a later stage.

David Borrow: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston will raise the issue later in the proceedings, possibly on the floor of the House where he can participate fully in the discussions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdraw.

New Clause 19

Defined benefit schemes: amendment of rules
‘The Secretary of State shall lay regulations prescribing circumstances in which a statutory override can be applied that enables scheme rules to be amended to reflect the Pensions Act 2004 changes to the indexation cap for service going forward and for the change in the revaluation cap introduced under section 79.’.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Nigel Waterson: The new clause is another return to the simplification, or deregulation, agenda. It is very limited in scope; it is for a limited statutory override. One of the issues looked at by Messrs. Lewin and Sweeney in their review was statutory override. The amendment is sponsored by the National Association of Pension Funds, and the background is the whole thrust of trying to limit or reduce the costs and burdens on sponsoring employers of existing defined benefits schemes. Those costs have gone up a lot in recent years. The latest NAPF annual survey showed that the administration costs of an average scheme have risen by over 50 per cent. in the last two years alone. That is a staggering figure.
The NAPF welcomes the Government’s rolling deregulation programme—rolling is just about correct, although it is not very fast. It says,
“we believe the Government could go further and accelerate the process”.
That is a marvellous piece of understatement. One way in which that could be done, would be to introduce a limited statutory override into the Bill. I have already touched on the work of the external deregulation reviewers. They identified a problem whereby some schemes are unable to take advantage of Government simplification measures, due to the way in which their own scheme rules are drafted. It is not the law itself that stops them, it is their own scheme rules. The problem is about how that can be changed.
Lewin and Sweeney recommended that the Government should legislate to ensure that employers and pension scheme trustees can override their scheme rules in certain specific cases set down in the legislation. That would include the right to make changes to the indexation requirements introduced in the 2004 Act, and it should apply in other circumstances such as the revaluation in clause 79.
As we near the end of the Committee stage I may, for once, be pressing on an open door. The Government have said that they agree with the measure in principle, but they also believe that it should be possible to make such changes by secondary legislation. The NAPF does not entirely agree with that because of the complexity of the pensions set up at the moment. It believes that we should send what it calls a “strong signal of support” to those employers offering high-value occupational pension schemes—something that I entirely agree with. It says,
“the amendment...seeks to put the matter beyond doubt and provide a power—in primary legislation—which will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend the Pensions Act 2004 indexation changes and those set down in clause 79 of this Bill regarding revaluation to all pension schemes.”
I have two final points that are important to put on the record.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that section 68 of the Pensions Act 1995 enables regulations of the sort that he describes to be brought forward. In effect, the provision that would enable us to bring forward the regulations is already there. If it were the case that we intended to bring those regulations forward, that prompts the question of what point the amendment would serve.

Nigel Waterson: The obvious riposte to that is to ask the Minister why he has not brought forward regulations, draft or otherwise. The NAPF accepts what the Government are saying in principle, but it thinks that we should send a strong message to industry and sponsoring employers that this is possible. I do not want to get into this too deeply, but there are wider issues about sections 67 and 68 of the 1995 Act. The Department’s view has been that those sections do not bar pensions schemes from doing this, that or the other. In fact, on the basis of legal advice, which as we all know is rarely black or white, many employers have often felt that they are not allowed by those sections to do certain things. We will return later to those issues, particularly in relation to section 67. We still think that it is worth proceeding with the new clause but if, when he comes to speak substantively on this, the Minister can confirm that these regulations are about to hit an unsuspecting world, I might take a more charitable view on pressing the new clause.
Any decisions regarding changes to scheme rules would still be subject to mutual agreement by the employer and the scheme trustees and the changes would only affect pension rights accrued in the future, not those earned in the past. That is a chunk of consensus that is now accepted on all sides. It emerges from Sweeney and Lewin that accrued rights should not be tampered with. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Mike O'Brien: I am not sure that I entirely got the answer I was seeking about why this particular new clause is necessary. I do not think that there is any difference between my view and that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne about the need to provide a statutory override. We have already indicated, as a matter of policy, that we intend to issue regulations for consultation later this year, which will enable the override to be put in place. Given that we already have a statutory capability to introduce those provisions, I do not detect from the hon. Gentleman any convincing argument as to why we need to include it in the Bill; I would be prepared to consider it if there was one. The provision is there and we do intend to make this change; he is knocking at an open door and it is important that the statutory override is put in place.
This can be quite a complex area, as the hon. Gentleman said, so I want to ensure that when we publish the regulations we have time for the various employers’ groups and others to look at the regulations and give us their views. That is the better way forward. The new clause would not prevent us from doing that, but it is unnecessary for that purpose. I aim to have a consultation later this year to achieve what the hon. Gentleman seeks. I hope that it will then be brought into effect by Parliament, either this year or in the early part of next year, so the change that he seeks is on its way, and not even at a slower pace than that sought by the new clause. The reason we have not brought it forward so far is that we have been working on the Bill—there is a limit to the availability of parliamentary draftsmen and officials to do everything at once. I wish that such resources were unlimited, but they are not. I will seek to bring forward the changes as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Nigel Waterson: I am delighted that the Minister thinks that he has the powers to do this, and at some point might even use them. I appreciate the point about limited availability of parliamentary draftsmen, which is why we have tried to help him out by drafting the relevant provision. I do not think that he has raised any technical issues on that particularly. He has confirmed my worst fears that this is indeed part of what is called a rolling deregulatory programme. We would like to see it roll a bit faster, that is all that I am really saying. Now it is all going to be swept up in the review. Another review was announced in the Chamber today, I gather, so I think that we are up to 57 reviews since the current Prime Minister took over.

Mike O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not reviewing the statutory override idea at all; we are merely going to put it into regulations. The Lewin and Sweeney review has been completed so there are no more reviews, it is just a matter of getting the regulations out there, consulting on them to get them right, and getting them implemented.

Nigel Waterson: Yes. Let us not go further into the nature of the Lewin and Sweeney exercise, but it seems like a wartime convoy going at the speed of the slowest ship when there seems to be a lot of consensus on what needs to be done. The Minister has the powers, and we should get on and do it. Clearly, the door at which I am pushing, and which is supposed to be open, is stuck. Until the odd-job man makes an appearance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

Personal account sharing on divorce
‘(1) Any sum may be transferred from one personal account into another personal account when—
(a) a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership leads to a court order or agreement by mutual consent splitting the assets of the parties concerned;
(b) the court order or agreement by mutual consent instructs that a proportion of the value of the personal account of the transferor should be made the property of the transferee; and
(c) both the transferor and the transferee hold a personal account.
(2) In this section “the transferor” and “the transferee” shall be defined as in section 83 of this Act.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is my duty to give my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne the odd rest during our proceedings as he has borne the brunt of our efforts for a while.
New clause 21 would ensure that there are provisions for the sharing of personal accounts on divorce or the ending of a civil partnership. It has been supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I am grateful for the brief that it provided.
The new clause is simple. I am well aware of the concerns expressed by both Ministers, and indeed by Tim Jones and Paul Myners of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority in the evidence sessions, that we need to keep the administration of personal accounts simple. They do not want a mass of transfers in and out, which I believe are barred until 2017. If there is a criticism of new clause 21, it is probably that it is modest in scope, too restrictive and would not help enough people because it relates only to couples when they both have a personal account. The issue is not easy, and we are not talking about new money coming into the personal account scheme or money going outside in its entirety.
Paragraph (b) allows transfers by mutual consent, which I hope the Minister has noted. That is important because I learned from the Equality and Human Rights Commission briefing that although pension sharing rules on divorce were introduced in December 2000—since they were introduced there have, sadly, been more than 1 million petitions for divorce—figures from the Department for Constitutional Affairs reveal that in the year to September 2007, less than 8 per cent. of divorcing couples obtained pension-sharing orders. That tells me that there is a real problem in this area, and that an asset, which in many cases may be worth as much or perhaps more than the former matrimonial home, is not being fairly shared. A wife may have contributed greatly to a marriage over many years or may have taken time off to look after children or a sick relative, and it is absolutely right and important that she should enjoy the proceeds of pension contributions to which she has a right, given her part in the marriage over many years. This is an area that couples often find contentious, and believe will be complicated, or perhaps they are not even aware that it is possible to have a claim on a former spouse’s pension.
I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Minister. I know that there is a bar on transfers before 2017, but I repeat that we are not talking about transfers out of or into the personal account scheme. We are talking only about changing the fair sharing of pension pots within the personal account scheme. I think that in 2017 it would probably be necessary to go beyond the provisions in new clause 21 and perhaps look at other cases. I hope that the Minister, perhaps when he replies, will give the Committee an indication of whether the review of transfers in and out, in 2017, will take into account that very important aspect.
I hope that I have set out where we are coming from in tabling new clause 21. I hope that the Minister realises the seriousness of the matter, given that, as I have just said, less than 8 per cent. of divorcing couples currently obtain pension sharing orders. If he cannot accept the new clause, as drafted, I hope very much that he will reassure us that the Government are aware of the importance of the matter and intend to do something about it.

John Greenway: I think that my hon. Friend is on to something with this new clause. I want to make a brief point that he did not touch on in his otherwise excellent rÃ(c)sumÃ(c) of the new clause. He has said that it will apply only when a divorcing couple both hold personal accounts. One of the attractions of the personal account scheme will be its low cost. On Tuesday, in Committee, we discussed changes to provisions for pension splitting on divorce and the prospect of further work to be done by the Government. However, it is not clear whether someone could transfer their money into a personal account. I see nothing in the Bill that would allow for that.
Clause 100, which I have been rereading along with its explanatory note, deals with the exclusion of, rather than allowing, transfers. Such transfers would entail very little cost. In fact, there would probably be no cost at all, other than a charge that might be levied by the scheme for such a transfer. Given that we are probably dealing with relatively low-income earners, I find the prospect of the new clause particularly attractive. I am not sure whether it needs to be included in the Bill, or whether a power to deal with it in regulations is buried in the detail. However, on principle, I support my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I regret only that I did not spot the new clause earlier and add my name to it.

James Plaskitt: This is indeed an important matter and I am grateful to the two hon. Members who have just spoken on it. As I said, the new clause would replicate for personal accounts the effect of provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Pension sharing was a flagship policy of the Government’s first pensions reform and the arrangements in the 1999 Act will apply to the personal accounts scheme, as they do to all other occupational pension schemes. Given that the Act provides already for pension sharing for occupational schemes, we have not duplicated the provisions in the Bill.
If a couple divorces and the court makes a pension sharing order, the trustees of a scheme will arrange for the former spouse or civil partner to be awarded a pension credit, which will be a share of the member’s pension rights. The trustees will then discharge the pension credit into a pension scheme in the former spouse’s name, who will then become a pension credit member of that scheme.

Andrew Selous: I am reassured by the way in which the Minister started his remarks. For the sake of clarification, we heard a lot during the evidence sessions about no transfers at all before 2017, but is the Minister now saying that it will be possible in divorce cases to move money in and out before 2017?

James Plaskitt: We covered that in previous debates on divorce and arrangements for it. The arrangement is that the pension credits, as they are called, that come out of a divorce settlement and are awarded by the courts can be transferred into such personal pension schemes—the point covered by the hon. Member for Ryedale—but there is a ban on them subsequently being transferred out.
Scheme rules determine whether a scheme will accept the pension credit members. Occupational pension schemes are not obliged to accept them, and very few do. Some existing schemes do not accept them if the former spouse has no connection with the sponsoring company. It is our intention that personal accounts will accept the discharge of a pension credit into personal accounts if that is what the former spouse wishes, provided that the pension credit has come from the personal account or the former spouse has a personal account in his or her own right as either an active or deferred member.
The former spouse may have the pension credit discharged into another pension arrangement, such as a personal pension, if that is what they prefer. There is no compulsion to use personal accounts. The Government’s detailed intention to pension sharing in personal accounts will be covered in the scheme order. I am grateful that the new clause has provided the opportunity for me to explain our intentions. I hope that I have offered assurances. Our proposals are wider in scope than the new clause would allow, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw it.

Andrew Selous: I am indeed reassured by what the Minister. He will recall that, at the start of my remarks, I almost criticised the new clause by saying that it was more restrictive than I had wanted it to be. As always, I was fearful that the hon. Gentleman would say that we were overdoing it by putting forward a proposal that was too complicated. However, what he said about the scheme order is good news and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Open market option as the default for the annuitisation of personal accounts
‘(1) An annuity bought with funds saved through the scheme established under section 50 or a qualifying scheme is a lifetime annuity if—
(a) it is payable by an insurance company,
(b) the member was required to select the insurance company from the open market,
(c) it is payable until the member’s death or until the later of the member’s death and the end of a term certain not exceeding ten years, and
(d) it is a level annuity, an increasing annuity or a relevant linked annuity.
(2) An annuity is a level annuity if its amount does not vary from year to year.
(3) An annuity is an increasing annuity if its amount increases from year to year.
(4) An annuity is a relevant linked annuity if its amount varies from year to year but only in line with changes in (or by an amount which does not exceed the amount by which it would vary if it varied in line with changes in)—
(a) the retail prices index,
(b) the market value of freely marketable assets, or
(c) an index reflecting the market value of freely marketable assets.
(5) “Freely marketable assets” means assets which are sold on the open market at a price not determined by the member.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have so far rightly spent a lot of time dealing with accumulation and the measures that people have to take to ensure that they have a pension worth saving for. The new clause deals with what happens when someone retires and how we should go about it. I refer hon. Members to proposed subsection (1)(b) because that measure is different from existing legislation. It requires the customer to select an annuity from the open market, while the existing provision states that the customer has the opportunity to choose on the open market. In other words, we believe that people should go on the open market rather than simply be covered by the provision saying that they may go on the open market, and we want that advice linked to the information made available to people with personal accounts
Why have we tabled the new clause? A comparison of the figures on the FSA’s website for a different range of people shows that there can be up to an average of 15 per cent. difference between the best and worst annuity that a person could purchase. For example, let us consider a single male with a five-year guarantee on a level income annuity. At the age of 65, between the highest and lowest annuity available, there was a difference of 10.45 per cent. For a joint annuity in respect of a husband and wife, the spouse being three years younger, at the age of 65 the difference for level income is 18.89 per cent. and, escalating at 3 per cent. per annum, it is 22.28 per cent. Those differences are huge.
Within the companies on the FSA website, which are some of the most commercially competitive and well-known in the country, such as Norwich Union, Legal & General, Canada Life, Friends Provident and Reliance Mutual, there is a huge range of differences.
With impaired life annuities, which are typically available to someone with an impaired life, such as because they are a smoker or have suffered a heart attack, there can be up to a 40 per cent. difference between the benefits under such a scheme and the ones they could get with an enhanced annuity. Those are staggering figures. If hon. Members consider the original Turner report, we have gone down this road to try to get a low-cost saving model that could give people an enhanced pension, which is laudable. However, if we do not do so, when we come to the decumulation phase, we will more than encourage people to use the open market—we will make them use it. We will see all the benefits from the savings that people have by going through the personal accounts wiped away because they might be advised, perhaps by the firm that they are working for, to go to a preferred annuity provider that may not give the best rates. It is in everybody’s interests, not least the state’s—given that any shortage of income may have to been met through enhanced benefits—that we encourage, nay require, retirees to get the best open market option.

John Greenway: I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman’s objective, but I am slightly confused about why he thinks that we need the new clause. I understand that the personal accounts scheme would provide the same opportunities and entitlements that apply to all other pension schemes, particularly personal pension schemes, where the open market option already exists. However, we should address how we can ensure that retirees are given that information. Perhaps the Minister will consider including that in the regulations to be made under clause 8(2).

Paul Rowen: The hon. Gentleman is right. He knows a lot more about this than I do. We want to ensure that retirees get that information and go down that route. However, we tabled the new clause because we want that information to be required to be made available under the Bill, rather than saying that it should be made available. That is a matter of semantics, but it is important. For example, it is estimated that in 2007 those buying an annuity lost £1.25 billion of pension and benefit by not accessing enhanced annuity rates. At the moment there is insufficient information available for people purchasing annuities and some relevant issues are not being addressed. In due course, an additional 6 million to 10 million people will have a personal account and will want to cash it in for an annuity, and it is important that they go for the open market option.
I will be interested to hear how the Minister intends to ensure that that option is made available. As the hon. Member for Ryedale knows, we have laboured the point about information and advice quite a lot, because the success of the personal accounts is predicated on the quality of the advice that is available. By including the new clause in the Bill, we would be requiring the open market option to be used, because it has the benefit of forcing people to go down that route, otherwise they may take the easy option. We know what happens when people are visited in their homes by people trying to get them to change their electricity or gas supplier: they use the information that they are given because that is all they have in front of them. The benefit of the new clause is that it says that the open market option, with all the options available, is the route that has to be chosen. I would be very interested to hear how the Minister intends to ensure that that sort of benefit is taken advantage of, if not by that route.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale for tabling the new clause. I am tempted to reply by referring him to the hon. Member for Ryedale, who has almost dealt with the matter already. Nevertheless, I have a few other things to add and some reassurances to give, which I hope will address the thrust of the argument made by the hon. Member for Rochdale and encourage him to withdraw the new clause, which, as I will try to explain, is unnecessary.
New clause 22, as the hon. Gentleman said, would require all qualifying pension schemes, including personal accounts, not only to offer, but to require, their members to exercise the open market option. As he rightly said, choosing annuities is one of the most important financial decisions that a pension scheme member makes. It is a one-off decision that can have a big effect on the value of income in retirement. For this reason, the Government fully support the open market option, which allows individuals to shop around to get the best annuity deals that they can under the circumstances, rather than simply taking the annuity offered by the provider. By shopping around, people can certainly make a very big difference to the value of their pot—as much as 30 per cent, we believe.
However, new clause 22 is not required to ensure that members of personal accounts, or any other qualifying scheme, can benefit from the open market option. Under the Finance Act 2004, all tax-registered money purchase pension schemes that provide benefits through the purchase of an annuity must offer the open market option, or they would face tax charges. As clause 14 requires all qualifying schemes to be tax registered, that requirement, in effect, already applies to all money purchase schemes into which employees can be automatically enrolled, including personal accounts.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government, working with stakeholders, have recently conducted a review of the operation of the open market option. That review reported in 2007 and set out a number of measures to help and encourage more individuals to use it. We do not believe that it would be right at this stage to go beyond that and to force members of money purchase schemes to use the open market. Apart from anything else, such an approach could add to costs and complexity, for example if schemes had to check that the member had shopped around to avoid tax charges.
We do not believe that the Bill should create a separate set of rules just for personal accounts. Additionally, we have said that within the existing framework, the detailed design of the process will be a matter for the delivery authority, based on the conclusions of the review of the open market.
Regarding the point of information that was raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale, existing legislation already requires occupational pension schemes to provide a wide range of information to members. The relevant parts of the legislation will apply to personal accounts in the same way as to any other pension scheme.

John Greenway: I must confess that I had not thought about this point before. Could the Minister clarify how he thinks the personal accounts scheme will be structured? If someone is in a group personal pension scheme operated by a major insurance company pension provider, and the default position is that that pension provider will convert the cash in the fund to an annuity at their rates unless the person exercises the option to purchase an annuity somewhere else on the open market, is it the intention that the scheme will itself provide a default pension, or will people simply take the money and buy the best priced pension they can find? I think that the Minister takes my point that there is quite a subtle difference between the two.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress that. The important thing is to ensure that individuals reaching this point are aware of the need to shop around for their annuities and that they have the right information to do so. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Rochdale, we are making changes, which were reported in 2007, to the way the OMO works.
The Pensions Advisory Service is setting up a web-based, structured choice tool to guide people. We are working with stakeholders to facilitate the development of better focused information for customers about their annuity options. The issue will also be for the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, which will be responsible for the detailed design of how members can access their pension savings. That will include consideration of the information that members will need when making that important choice.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee about the Government’s commitment to the open market option and that the personal accounts scheme, along with other qualifying money purchase schemes, will be required to offer that to their members. The appropriate support for information will be in place, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will withdraw the motion.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and reassurance. I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: I advise the Committee that we have a revised selection list. Although new clause 28 is starred, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has spoken to me about it and I think that the issue merits a brief debate. Bearing in mind that we are not under pressure from the programme order, I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to move his new clause.

New Clause 28

Financial Assistance Scheme to cover certain pension schemes
‘The Financial Assistance Scheme shall cover those pension schemes which have registered with the Department for Work and Pensions by 1st January 2008 and which would have been entititled to assistance by either the FAS or the PPF but for decisions taken by the company sponsoring the pension scheme or by the Trustees of the pension scheme where the insolvency event occurred before the setting up of the PPF but the winding up occurred after that date.’.—[Mr. Flello.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Robert Flello: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute or two, especially as you have been kind enough to exercise your discretion in calling my new clause, Sir Nicholas, for which I am most grateful.
There is a small group of schemes, which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister mentioned on Tuesday, that fall between the financial assistance scheme and the PPF. Those schemes, such as that of Desmond and Sons, are ones where the employer went insolvent before April 2005, meaning that the PPF does not apply, but where winding up, for whatever reason, was delayed until after April 2005, meaning that the schemes fall outside the criteria for FAS assistance. A technicality has caused the problem—I think that I am safe in assuming that it was not the Government’s intention to exclude such schemes when the FAS was set up. They are occupational schemes, just like others caught within the FAS. The only difference is the date of winding up.
Without detaining the Committee much further, it is fair to say that such circumstances would not have been foreseen at the time. It was not reasonable to have expected pension schemes to wind up later than the employer’s insolvency, yet we know that such schemes exist. Pensioners are not getting either the pension for which they paid into the scheme—the pension they expected to get—or any help, which is a massive problem for the pensioners involved. A small number of schemes are affected, and I understand that they have a mainly small numbers of members, so I presume that the cost of putting this right will be equally small. However, it is an extremely vital issue for those people concerned with, or caught up in, such a situation.

Mike O'Brien: The FAS was designed to help underfunded occupational pension schemes that started winding up between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005. The Pension Protection Fund was designed to help occupational pension schemes that were left underfunded when their employer went insolvent from 6 April 2005 onwards. The new clause refers to a small group of schemes that fall between the FAS and the PPF, where the employer went into insolvency before 6 April 2005, but, for many reasons, the pension scheme, although underfunded, did not start winding up until after that date.
A small number of schemes are affected. We know of three at the moment: Desmond and Sons, which is based primarily in Northern Ireland but also in the UK; Stanley Press Equipment; and Pinney’s. If we are to deal with the issue, it would be useful to know whether any other schemes are affected. It is an anomaly that those schemes are not covered and I want to look at that in more detail.
I am sympathetic to the claims put forward by Members who have made representations, including my hon. Friend. We recognise that some scheme members have suffered pension losses through no fault of their own, despite their employer acting legally. I am hopeful that we might find a way to assist them. I cannot give a guarantee at this point, but I encourage my hon. Friend and his colleagues who have been pressing me to continue to do so in the hope that we can find a way to resolve the issue. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I am reassured that the important issue is being looked at seriously by him and his Government colleagues. While colleagues might seek to bring forward similar amendments to the Bill on the Floor of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his brevity.

New Schedule 2

‘Pension compensation on divorce etc: Scotland
1 The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 37) is amended as follows.
2 In section 8 (orders for financial provision)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after paragraph (baa) insert—
“(bab) a pension compensation sharing order;”,
(ii) after paragraph (ba) insert—
“(bb) an order under section 12B(2);”,
(b) subsection (4A) is repealed,
(c) after subsection (7) add—
“(8) The court shall not, in the same proceedings, make both a pension compensation sharing order and an order under section 12B(2) in relation to the same PPF compensation.
(9) The court shall not make a pension compensation sharing order in relation to rights to PPF compensation that—
(a) derive from rights under a pension scheme which, at the time the Board of the Pension Protection Fund assumed responsibility for the scheme, was subject to an order made under section 12A(2) or (3) in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons,
(b) derive from rights under a pension scheme which were at any time the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons,
(c) are or have been the subject of a pension compensation sharing order in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons, or
(d) are or have been the subject of an order made under section 12B(2) in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons.
(10) Where, as regards PPF compensation, the parties to a marriage or the partners in a civil partnership have in effect a qualifying agreement which contains a term relating to pension compensation sharing, the court shall not—
(a) make an order under section 12B(2); or
(b) make a pension compensation sharing order,
relating to the compensation unless it also sets aside the agreement or term under section 16(1)(b) of this Act.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10)—
(a) the expression “term relating to pension compensation sharing” is to be construed by reference to section 16(2AA) of this Act; and
(b) a qualifying agreement is one to which section 84(2) of the Pensions Act 2008 relates.”
3 After section 8A insert—
“8B Pension compensation sharing orders: apportionment of charges
The court may include in a pension compensation sharing order provision about apportionment between the parties of any charge under section 91 of the Pensions Act 2008 or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.”
4 In section 10 (sharing of value of matrimonial property or partnership property)—
(a) in subsection (5A), for the words from “compensation payable” to “that Chapter” substitute “PPF compensation”,
(b) for subsection (8B) substitute—
“(8B) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this Act about—
(a) calculation and verification of PPF compensation,
(b) apportionment of PPF compensation.
(8C) Regulations under subsection (8B) may include provision—
(a) for calculation or verification in a manner approved by a prescribed person,
(b) by reference to regulations under section 86 of the Pensions Act 2008.”
5 In section 12A (orders for payment of capital sum: pensions lump sums), in subsection (7ZC), for the words “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8(4A), for” substitute “For”.
6 After section 12A insert—
“12B Order for payment of capital sum: pension compensation
(1) This section applies where the court makes an order under section 8(2) for payment of a capital sum (a “capital sum order”) by a party to a marriage or a partner in a civil partnership (“the liable person”) in circumstances where the matrimonial or (as the case may be) partnership property within the meaning of section 10 includes any rights to PPF compensation.
(2) On making the capital sum order, the court may make an additional order requiring the Board of the Pension Protection Fund, if at any time any payment in respect of PPF compensation becomes due to the liable person, to pay the whole or part of that payment to the other party or (as the case may be) other partner (“the other person”).
(3) Any such payment by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund—
(a) shall discharge so much of its liability to the liable person as corresponds to the amount of the payment, and
(b) shall be treated for all purposes as a payment made by the liable person in or towards the discharge of the person’s liability under the capital sum order. 
(4) Where the liability of the liable person under the capital sum order has been discharged in whole or in part, other than by a payment by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund, the court may, on an application by any person having an interest, recall the order or vary the amount specified in such an order as appears to the court appropriate in the circumstances.
(5) The court may not make an additional order under subsection (2) in relation to rights to PPF compensation that—
(a) derive from rights under a pension scheme which, at the time the Board of the Pension Protection Fund assumed responsibility for the scheme, was subject to an order made under section 12A(2) or (3) in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons,
(b) derive from rights under a pension scheme which were at any time the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons,
(c) are or have been the subject of a pension compensation sharing order in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons, or
(d) are or have been the subject of an order made under subsection (2) in relation to the marriage or (as the case may be) civil partnership or a previous one between the same persons.”
7 In section 13 (order for periodical allowance), in subsection (2)(b), after the words “pension sharing order” insert “or pension compensation sharing order”.
8 In section 16 (agreements on financial provision)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), for the words “does not contain a term relating to pension sharing” substitute “contains neither a term relating to pension sharing nor a term relating to pension compensation sharing”,
(b) in subsection (2)(c), after the word “sharing” in the first place where it occurs insert “or pension compensation sharing”,
(c) in subsection (2)(c)(i), after the word “sharing” insert “or (as the case may be) the term relating to pension compensation sharing”,
(d) after subsection (2A), insert—
“(2AA) For the purpose of subsection (2), a term relating to pension compensation sharing is a term corresponding to provision which may be made in a pension compensation sharing order and satisfying the requirements set out in section 84(1)(g) of the Pensions Act 2008.”
9 In section 27 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1), before the definition of “pension sharing order” insert—
““pension compensation sharing order” is an order which—
(a) provides that one party’s shareable rights to PPF compensation be subject to pension compensation sharing for the benefit of the other party, and
(b) specifies the percentage value to be transferred;”,
(b) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) In subsection (1), in the definition of “pension compensation sharing order”, the reference to shareable rights to PPF compensation is to rights in relation to which pension compensation sharing is available under Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
(1C) In this Act—
“PPF compensation” means compensation payable under the pension compensation provisions,
“the pension compensation provisions” means—
(a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 and any regulations or order made under it,
(b) Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 and any regulations or order made under it,
(c) any provision corresponding to the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) in force in Northern Ireland.”’.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. We seem to have moved ahead at full steam and I had not thought that I would not be here for this part of our proceedings. However, everything has progressed faster than any of us perhaps expected, so I am here, and I am pleased that I am.
Members of the Committee are grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, and to your colleague, Mrs. Anderson, for your firm and fair steering of the Committee over the past three weeks. It has been a pleasure to serve as a member of a Committee chaired by you both. I would also like to extend warm thanks to all members of the Committee, especially my hon. Friends, but also Opposition Members, especially the hon. Members for Eastbourne, for South-West Bedfordshire, for Rochdale and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, all of whom have made Front-Bench contributions. I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ryedale, who, along with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, has made significant contributions with his knowledge and skill.
I thank my colleagues for their help. Pensions matters can get tedious, but I am sure that they have got through a lot of correspondence and that their constituents are well informed as a result. The debate has dealt with some important issues that will affect many millions of people. It is important that we deal with this in as consensual a way as possible and that we bring together stakeholders.
I was particularly pleased that we were able to have the oral evidence sessions at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. A number of organisations were able to come forward: the ABI, Age Concern, the ACA, the BCC, the CBI, the EEF, and lots of other initials. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Federation of Small Businesses, Help the Aged, Which?, the TUC, the Pensions Policy Institute and others were all able to inform our debate. The result has been that the quality of the debate from both sides has been particularly good. The information that we received from the three pensions commissioners who gave evidence was invaluable, as was the help that we received from Paul Myners and Tim Jones from the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. I thank them all for their contributions.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, for his contributions, and I extend a particular word of thanks to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, and also to our Whip, who has made a very welcome contribution at various stages of our proceedings. I also wish to extend my grateful thanks to the officials in my Department who have briefed me, the parliamentary counsel who drafted the Bill with expertise, the police and other officials, Hansard and the Clerk of the Committee, all of whom have ensured that we were able to carry through an important Bill with a great deal of proper consideration and detailed understanding by members of the Committee. Our proceedings have taken place in a spirit of goodwill, good humour and consideration. I hope that we can look forward to the rest of the Bill’s progress through the House and the other place being conducted in a similar way.

Nigel Waterson: Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. May I add my thanks to those of the Minister to your and your fellow chairman—I hope that you will pass those thanks on to Mrs Anderson—and to all the officials, the Hansard writers, the Clerks, the police and all the other staff who have made this such a smooth running Committee? I would like to thank the Ministers for their unfailing courtesy and their amazing ability to keep a straight face while advancing the most preposterous arguments—it was quite an achievement, but they have both had a lot of practice.
 Mr. O'Brien rose—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I am not sure that there can be an intervention on a point of order.

Nigel Waterson: I would like to thank the Labour members of the Committee, particularly the Whip—the velvet fist inside the velvet glove. The hon. Member for Caerphilly has been the big cheese, as it were, of the Committee. He kept us all running to time, or slightly ahead of time, in fact.
I usually try to enliven these events by trawling through hon. Members’ biographies that are on the internet, but this time there have been fairly slim pickings. However, I was taken aback by the unconscious irony of the hon. Member for Brent, South, who sadly is not here. Her biography says:
“From an early age I knew that as a woman in a male dominated society you have to be active and assertive, or else you won’t be heard. I am part of a generation who grew up in the Thatcher years and didn’t like it.”
There is a bizarre contradiction there. Obviously she thought that the Thatcher years were those of a male-dominated society.
The Liberal Democrats, as always, have enlivened our debates. I referred before to the fact that the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey includes part of Loch Ness. It is rather reminiscent of Liberal Democrat pensions policy: sometimes through the mist we thought that we perceived a shape, but then we rubbed our eyes and saw that there was nothing there at all.
I thank my colleagues on the Committee. To match the efforts of the Government Whip, we have had to have two different Whips: my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) and for Rochford and Southend, East, both of whom served the Committee admirably and well. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who has worked extremely hard on a large part of the Bill. He brought his own expertise to discussions about the Territorial Army, among other things, and his personal commitments and beliefs to some of the other issues, too.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who has brought enormous experience and expertise to the Committee. In fact, sometimes I thought that he was doing a better job than Ministers in responding to some points. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, who talked passionately about the pensions victims in her own constituency. I know that she has followed these issues closely for some time.
I entirely agree with the Minister about the benefits of oral evidence. There might be Bills on which that might not be so helpful, but in this case it put into context a lot of the discussions that we were to have. There were times when we had a big array of witnesses and they were almost all very helpful indeed. However, for those involved in pensions, life is one long seminar and I see the Committee as just another stage in that process. Of course, there is another seminar in a week or two, which has been organised by the indefatigable Pensions Policy Institute, to talk about means-testing and so on, so life goes on. Really, this is all part of the same process for people in the pensions world.
We regret that some of our more sensible ideas were not embraced by the Government, but as I have said before, we have pencilled them in for the pensions Bill that will be introduced under the next Conservative Government in a year or two. I thank you, Sir Nicholas, for your unfailing courtesy and helpfulness in allowing this Committee stage to go so well. We look forward to the next pensions Bill.

Paul Rowen: Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. May I also thank you and your co-Chair for the efficient and courteous way in which you have conducted proceedings? This has been my first pensions Bill, although I know that many hon. Members here have been through several and survived. We all are indebted to the Clerks, who assisted us in ensuring that our amendments made it on to the amendment paper. I am also grateful to members of Hansard and the police, who have helped to make our proceedings go well.
I would also like to thank the two Ministers. We have had a continuous dialogue throughout the Committee and have regularly had copies of letters that the Ministers have sent on issues that we have raised, so I thank them for that. I genuinely feel that we have had a proper dialogue in which they have agreed to change and look at various things. That demonstrates the best aspects of the Committee system, when everything is not a closed book and is open to debate.
Again, I support what has been said about the involvement of outside bodies in the oral evidence sessions, which informed the debate considerably. I have particularly enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Ryedale, who obviously knows a great deal more about pensions than I do. I thank the Government Whip and Labour and Conservative Members for the pleasant way in which we have gone about the proceedings.

John Greenway: Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I endorse everything that has been said and I am grateful for the comments that have been made about my contributions. However, there is one serious point that I want you to take from the Committee, given your membership of other Committees. I must confess that I found the evidence session, which preceded our normal scrutiny of the Bill, an extremely enlightening and constructive experiment. I have thought back to the first time that I was in Committee Room 10 in the autumn of 1987 when we were sitting on the other side of the room and not allowed to say anything. The yah-boo-sucks politics that took place in Standing Committees in those days was unconstructive, unhelpful and did not improve the quality of legislation. One of the reasons why this Committee has been so constructive and has ended up with better arguments is that so many issues were brought out in public during the evidence sessions.
From an Opposition point of view, in wanting to give the Government a run for their money, a lot of the foxes that we might have run with were shot by some of the evidence that we received. However, given that the collective objective of these occasions is to end up with better legislation, I would urge you, Sir Nicholas, to ensure that when decisions are taken in this place, the voice of reason calling for more oral evidence sessions at the start of Public Bill Committees should be heeded with real vigour. I know that you will share my view and that we can leave it in your capable hands to make sure that point is duly registered.

Mike O'Brien: Further to that point of order, if you will permit me, Sir Nicholas. I do not want to delay the Committee, but you ought to be aware of a minor incident that occurred during the course of these proceedings yet might have escaped your notice. At one stage, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire put forward a very constructive point to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responded by reading the wrong note and setting out an answer to a point that was not raised—he did so with great eloquence. Interestingly, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire said in response that he was greatly reassured. I can therefore say that the spirit of co-operation and constructive engagement during the course of this Committee has been unlike anything that I have ever experienced. Our proceedings have been very good humoured and I am grateful for that.

Nicholas Winterton: The Chairman of a Committee always gets the last word.
May I thank members of the Committee for their generous comments about myself and my co-Chairman, Janet Anderson, which I shall pass on to her? I am sure she will be as happy as me to have received such generous comments.
I congratulate the Committee on the work that it has done during the past month. It has been a great pleasure to chair this Committee, and I would like to thank all members of the Committee, particularly the Front-Bench Members—that includes the Liberal Democrats, of course—and those with special knowledge. For example, the hon. Member for Ryedale has added very considerably to the knowledge of the Committee, which, ultimately, has been to the benefit of the legislation that we have been considering line by line. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and even the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for South Ribble have put forward proposals succinctly that have added to the tenor and constructive nature of the debate.
I thank my Clerk, and those who have sat in when he has not been here, for their support and advice. I also thank the Official Report and the police: clearly they have added to the way this particular Public Bill Committee has gone so smoothly.
I think that this Committee has been an example to the people of this country of how Parliament actually can, in the right situation, do the job that it is here to do. We have considered a very important piece of legislation line by line. It has been done constructively. The usual channels have worked together and—uniquely one might say—the programme order has proved to be adequate, although, sadly, on many other occasions such orders are not. I believe that this Committee and the way the Government and the Opposition have worked together are examples that I hope will be understood and taken to heart by the House. I congratulate all Members on the contributions that they have made.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at nineteen minutes past Two o’clock.